Tet: 20th Century Battlefields

Series Contents

1. The Tet Offensive
   
2. Tet: Preparing to Attack
3. Tet: Allied Defenses
4. Tet: Battle for Saigon
5. Tet: 20th Century Battlefields

Tet: 20th Century Battlefields

I had plans for this point in the series to insert an installment titled, “Tet: Battles for Hue and Khe Sanh.  Instead, I

Peter and Dan Snow

happened upon an episode of a documentary series on television produced by the BBC.  The name of the series is 20th Century Battlefields.   The episode I was fortunate to catch was episode 5: 1968 Vietnam.  It (along with the rest of the series) is hosted by highly respected BBC radio and television personality Peter Snow, and his son Dan Snow.

The episode concentrated on the battles of Saigon (see above), and especially the battles for Hue, and Khe Sanh.  The previous entry in the Aerie’s series covered the Battle for Saigon, and as I was intending to cover Hue and Khe Sanh in this installment, I felt it entirely fitting, at this point, to insert  information about the BBC series.

Embedded below is a YouTube clip of the episode, it is listed as 1 of 6.  You may search google or Youtube to find other clips (2 through 5).  For those wishing good reporting and television documentation of the 1968 Tet Offensive in Vietnam, I highly reccomend this episode.  I have been inspired to search for other episodes in the series which covers Korea, WWII, The Persian Gulf wars, and others.

(Next in the Aerie’s Series will be the originally planned post on the battles for Hue and Khe Sanh).

c.e.s.

Tet: Battle for Saigon

Series Contents

1. The Tet Offensive
   
2. Tet: Preparing to Attack
3. Tet: Allied Defenses
4. Tet: Battle for Saigon

Part IV

Tet: Battle for Saigon

The first wave of attacks began shortly after midnight January the 30^th.  All five provincial capitals in II Corps and Da Nang, in I Corps, were attacked.  During all of their operations, the Vietcong held a similar pattern: mortar or rocket attacks were closely followed by massed ground assaults conducted by battalion-strength elements of the Vietcong, sometimes supported by North Vietnamese regulars.  They were not well coordinated at the local level. By sunrise, almost all had been repelled from their objectives.

General Phillip Davidson, chief of intelligence, notified Westmoreland that

This is going to happen in the rest of the country tonight and tomorrow morning.

All U.S. forces were placed on maximum alert.  Similar orders were issued to all South Vietnamese forces (ARVN).

ARVN Navy Base, Da Nang

Amazingly though, there was still never any real sense of urgency.  Orders cancelling leaves either came to late or were disregarded.

At 3:00 a.m. on the 31^st of January, Saigon and Hue were as well as several other provincial capitals and U.S. military bases and installations.

The following day, attacks were launched on other targets.  The last of the initial attacks during the first phase was launched on Ben Lieu on the 10^th of February.  A total of nearly 84,000 Vietcong troops made the initial attacks with thousands of others standing by as reinforcements or as blockers.  Communist forces also mortared or rocketed every major allied airfield and attacked 64 district capitals and scores of smaller towns.

In most cases, defenses were a South Vietnamese affair.  Local militia or army backed up by the National Police usually drove back the attackers within two or three days, but in numerous other areas heavy fighting continued for several days.  In all these cases, victory of the South was usually determined more or less by the brave, inspired, or cowardly actions of indigenous commanders.  But in no case did any South Vietnam unit desert or defect which was a major goal of the General Offensive, General Uprising.

General Westmoreland, to the media and in reports to Washington, responded with optimism.  Close observers, however, noted that the general was

Stunned that the communists had been able to coordinate so may attacks in such secrecy

and that he was

dispirited and deeply shaken.

Battle for Saigon

The communists did not try for a total takeover of the capital, although it was the focal point.

There were five primary targets in the downtown area;

1.     Headquarters of the ARVN General Staff

2.     Independence Palace

3.     American Embassy

4.     Long Binh Naval Headquarters

5.     National Radio Station

These objectives were assaulted by small elements of the local C-10 Sapper Battalion.  Elsewhere, ten Vietcong Local Force Battalions attacked the central police station, the Artillery Command, and the Armored Command headquarters.  The initial plan was to capture and hold for 48 hours which would give time for reinforcements to arrive and support or relieve.

VC bombing, Saigon

The defense of the Capital Military Zone was the responsibility of the South Vietnamese and was initially defended by 8 ARVN infantry battalions and the local police force.  By February 3^rd it had been reinforced by 5 ARVN Ranger Battalions, 5 Marine Corps and 5 ARVN Airborne Battalions.  U.S. Army units included the a military police battalion, 7 infantry battalions, and 6 artillery battalions.

Poor intelligence and poor local coordination hurt the communists from the beginning.  For example, the communists planned to use captured tanks and artillery pieces for further support. But, they found that they had been moved to another base two months earlier and that breech blocks of artillery pieces had been removed, making them useless.  One of the most important targets was the National Radio Station. They had brought a tape recording of Ho announcing the liberation of Saigon and calling for a “General Uprising.”  The building was seized and held for six hours but they were unable to broadcast due to the cutting off of the audio lines at the tower (which was located elsewhere as soon as the station was seized. The U.S. Embassy, a six-floor building situated within a four acre compound, had only been completed in September. At 02:45 it was attacked by a 19-man sapper team that blew a hole in the eight-foot high surrounding wall and charged through. With their officer killed in the initial attack and their attempt to gain access to the building having failed, however, the sappers simply milled around in the chancery grounds until they were all eliminated by reinforcements. By 09:20 the embassy and its grounds were secured.

Small squads of Vietcong spread out to attack officers and enlisted men’s billets, homes of ARVN officers, and district police stations. With “blacklists” of military officers and civil servants, they began to round up and execute any that could be found.

War, indeed, is hell.  Inhumanity breeds inhumanity. On the first of February General Nguyen Ngoc Loan, chief of the National Police Force, publicly executed a Vietcong officer captured in civilian clothing in front of a photographer and film cameraman.  This photo was widely distributed and raised international outrage.  My friends, while it may be true that a picture speaks a thousand words that does not mean that the words speak the true or entire message.  What was not said in the distribution of this brutality was that the suspect had just taken part in the murder of one of Loan’s most trusted officers and his entire family.

Outside the city, two Vietcong battalions attacked the U.S. logistical and headquarters complex at Long Binh. Bien

Street Justice--Saigon

Hoa Air Base was struck by a battalion, while the ARVN III Corps headquarters was the objective of another.

Tan Son Nhut Air Base was attacked by three battalions. Fortunately, a battalion of ARVN paratroopers, awaiting transport to Da Nang, went instead directly into action and halted the attack.  A total of 35 communist battalions had been committed to the Saigon objectives.  By dawn, most of the attacks within the city center had been eliminated, but severe fighting between Vietcong and allied forces erupted in the Chinatown neighborhood of Cholon around the Phu Tho racetrack, which was being utilized as a Vietcong staging area and command and control center.  Bitter and destructive house-to-house fighting erupted in the area and.  On the 4^th of February, the residents were ordered to leave their homes and the area was declared a free fire zone.  Fighting in the city came to a close only after a fierce battle between ARVN Rangers and Vietcong forces on the 7^th of March.

Except at Huế and mopping-up operations in and around Saigon, the first surge of the offensive was over by the second week of February. The U.S. estimated that during the first phase January 30^th through the 8^th of April, approximately 45,000 communist soldiers were killed and an unknown number were wounded.  For many years it was thought that this figure was overblown, but it was confirmed 1981.

Westmoreland claimed that during the same period 32,000 communist troops were killed and another 5,800 captured.  The South Vietnamese suffered 2,788 killed, 8,299 wounded, and 587 missing in action. U.S. and other allied forces suffered 1,536 killed, 7,764 wounded, and 11 missing.

Constitutional Framework

For those of you who are currently citizens of the United States (or are hoping to so become) the following post is merely a 101 course in American Government.  For those of you who are not US citizens and are happy with what you have, it may be read as a 300 level course in Comparative Government.  For those of either group who don’t care one way or the other, I have other stuff in this blog you might find interesting so you can just merrily click along.

Constitutional Framework of the United States of America

After the United States of America won its independence from England, it needed to form its own government.  It already had an Ad Hoc bunch of rich cat rebels acting as legislators under the loosest of authority running around in Philadelphia acting more as a War Cabinet than anything else.   But then, against all odds, they won the war and were left asking, “Now What?”

The Colonies had become De Facto as well as De Jure the United States and was an unique entity in the world and needed an unique method of definition.  At the moment of its formal separation from England, it was a collection of States each of which had its own idea of what a national government should look like.  Each one was also afraid of a strong central government after the whole business it (they) had gone through with England.

So they got together and wrote something which they called the Articles of Confederation. (1781-89 )

Well, given various reasons and very good examples that are all now part of history, the “Articles” just didn’t cut it.  So, the Constitution of the United States was written to redress its deficiencies.

The Constitution defines a federal system of government in which certain powers are delegated to the national government and others are reserved to the states.

The lower-case “f” federal means nothing more than a compact between political units that surrender sovereignty to a central authority but retain limited residual powers of government in and of themselves.  In this case, “federal” is an adjective.  The upper-case “F” Federal is a noun.  It is used to describe the centralized system itself, and in many cases indicates a total that is greater than the sum of its parts.  The distinction is important in the United States because the federal nature of American government has undergone dramatic transformation over the 225 years since its creation.  Invariably, the powers given to the constituent members of the federation have eroded.

The national government of the United States of America, under the Constitution consists of three branches; the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial.  They are designed to ensure, through separation of powers and through checks and balances, that no one branch of government is able to subordinate the other two branches. All three branches are interrelated, each with overlapping yet quite distinct authority.

The U.S. Constitution, the world’s oldest written national constitution still in effect, was officially ratified on June 21, 1788.  It formally entered into force on March 4, 1789, when George Washington was sworn in as the country’s first president.   Although the Constitution contains several specific provisions (such as age and residency requirements for holders of federal offices and powers granted to Congress), it is vague in many areas and could not have comprehensively addressed everything that has arisen in the centuries since its ratification. Thus, the Constitution is considered a living document.  Its meaning changes over time as a result of new interpretations of its provisions. In addition, it was designed to allow for changes.

Article V outlines the procedures necessary to amend it.  Amending the Constitution requires a proposal by a two-thirds vote of each house of Congress or by a national convention called for at the request of the legislatures of two-thirds of the states, followed by ratification by three-fourths of the state legislatures or by conventions in as many states.  So, you see, although the Constitution may be amended to allow for necessary changes and interpretations it is not an easy thing to do.  It require much more than a simple majority vote as might be accomplished by any one group or other coming into majority power.  It requires what is called a Super Majority.

Constitutional Convention

There has NEVER been a National Convention called by two-thirds of the states.  The only national convention of any such sort was the very first one which formed the Constitution itself and effectively overturned the Articles of Confederation.  This may or may not be a good thing depending on your political leanings.  A National Convention leaves the entire document wide open to change or even nullification.  It was out of a National Convention that the Articles were junked.  Single proposed amendments coming out of Congress in the previously mentioned manner is a much safer way to preserve the integrity of the document itself.

“So what?  Let’s junk the whole thing and start fresh,” you might say.  But, really?  Is the dog really that bad?  The form of government is fair.  It’s in the practice where things get fucked up.  A LOT of other things can be done without throwing Bathwater AND Baby out the window.

In the more than two centuries since the Constitution’s ratification, there have been 27 amendments. All successful amendments have been proposed by Congress, and all but one—the Twenty-first Amendment (1933), which repealed Prohibition—have been ratified by state legislatures. The first 10 amendments, proposed by Congress in September 1789 and adopted in 1791, are known collectively as the Bill of Rights, which places limits on the federal government’s power to curtail individual freedoms.

The Bill of Rights was promised BEFORE the ratification of the Constitution itself.  It was feared (and rightly so) that the adoption of a document that gave such power to the central government would effectively remove individual rights, especailly if protection of those rights were left to the individual states under the new federal arrangement.  In order to assure the passage of the Constitution, promises had to be made that individual rights would be protected.  These promises took the form of the Bill of Rights which came immediately after ratification of the Constitution.  The collective first 10 amendments were proposed just six months after the ratification of the Constitution and went into force in december of 1791, less than two years after the latter’s ratification.

The First Amendment provides that

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Though the First Amendment’s language appears absolute, it has been interpreted to mean that the federal government (and later the state governments) cannot place undue restrictions on individual liberties but can regulate speech, religion, and other rights.

The Second and Third amendments, which, respectively, guarantee the people’s right to bear arms and limit the quartering of soldiers in private houses, reflect the hostility of the framers to standing armies.

The Fourth through Eighth amendments establish the rights of the criminally accused, including safeguards against unreasonable searches and seizures, protection from double jeopardy, the right to refuse to testify against oneself, and the right to a trial by jury.

The Ninth and Tenth amendments underscore the general rights of the people. The Ninth Amendment protects the unenumerated residual rights of the people, and the Tenth Amendment reserves to the states or to the people those powers not delegated to the United States nor denied to the states.

Altogether, the Bill of Rights and (less implicitly) the Constitution of the United States does not so much justify what power the government has more than it LIMITS the power of the government.

The guarantees of the Bill of Rights are steeped in controversy, and debate continues over the limits that the federal government may appropriately place on individuals. One source of conflict has been the ambiguity in the wording of many of the Constitution’s provisions—such as the Second Amendment’s right “to keep and bear arms” and the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishments.” Also problematic is the Tenth Amendment’s apparent contradiction of the body of the Constitution; Article I, Section 8, enumerates the powers of Congress but also allows that it may make all laws “which shall be necessary and proper,” while the Tenth Amendment stipulates that “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The distinction between what powers should be left to the states or to the people and what is a necessary and proper law for Congress to pass has not always been clear.

Between the ratification of the Bill of Rights and the American Civil War (1861–65), only two amendments were passed, and both were technical in nature. The Eleventh Amendment (1795) forbade suits against the states in federal courts, and the Twelfth Amendment (1804) corrected a constitutional error that came to light in the presidential election of 1800, when Democratic-Republicans Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr each won 73 electors because electors were unable to cast separate ballots for president and vice president.

The Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendments were passed in the aftermath of the Civil War. The Thirteenth (1865) abolished slavery, while the Fifteenth (1870) forbade denial of the right to vote to former male slaves. The Fourteenth Amendment, which granted citizenship rights to former slaves and guaranteed to every citizen due process and equal protection of the laws, was regarded for a while by the courts as limiting itself to the protection of freed slaves, but it has since been used to extend protections to all citizens.

Initially, the Bill of Rights applied solely to the federal government and not to the states. In the 20th century, however, many (though not all) of the provisions of the Bill of Rights were extended by the Supreme Court through the Fourteenth Amendment to protect individuals from encroachments by the states. Notable amendments since the Civil War include the Sixteenth (1913), which enabled the imposition of a federal income tax; the Seventeenth (1913), which provided for the direct election of U.S. senators; the Nineteenth (1920), which established woman suffrage; the Twenty-fifth (1967), which established succession to the presidency and vice presidency; and the Twenty-sixth (1971), which extended voting rights to all citizens 18 years of age or older.

c.e.s.

Tet: Allied Defenses

Series Contents

1. The Tet Offensive
   
2. Tet: Preparing to Attack
3. Tet: Allied Defenses
4. Tet: Battle for Saigon

Tet: Allied Defenses

Part III

We were warned, but not so as you could tell.

Marines at Khe Sanh

The South Vietnamese government and military and its U.S. allies were not caught with their pants down.  Not completely or without reason anyway.  Impending communist military action was noticed by intelligence agencies.  I mean, after all, how could anyone NOT notice something of this scale looming (unless you are the CIA prior to the collapse of the USSR   ) ?

During late summer and fall of 1967 clues indicated a big shift in enemy strategic planning. Analysts concluded that the North could not defeat the US in any kind of major open battle nor could they  afford to continue in a battle of attrition.  If they (the communists) were intelligent, and amazingly there were major thinkers among the allies who assumed they were, they would attempt something of the sort which indeed did happen.

It was theorized that a possible strategy would be to attack cities nationwide and trigger a revolution.  They had no hard evidence that this what was planned at the time, so the theory was largely ignored.  But evidence began to mount.  Signs of

South Vietnamese President Thieu

a major military buildup began to increase.  The number of trucks observed heading south through Laos on the Ho Chi Minh Trail jumped from an average of 480/month to 1,116.  By November this total reached 3,823.  On the 20^th of December, General Westmoreland cabled Washington that he expected the Vietcong

to undertake an intensified countrywide effort, perhaps a maximum effort, over a relatively short period of time.

But the allies were STILL surprised by the size and scope.

The excuse has been given as “intelligence methodology” and that the allies in no way believed that anything of that scope and size could have come from such an “inferior” enemy.  In short, folks, it was stupid, dangerous hubris.

Lieutenant General Frederick Weyand

In 1967 there were a series of actions initiated by the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong that confused the allies and Saigon.  A U.S. Marine patrol prematurely triggered a North Vietnamese offensive aimed at taking the airstrip and combat base at Khe Sanh.  By the time the shooting stopped over 1,100 combined kills occurred.  This battle and several others came to be known as the “border battles.”

“Why” questioned the allies, “were there such large actions being taken by the enemy in such  relatively remote regions?”  It made no tactical or strategic sense based on then current philosophies of the North’s strategies.  The allies obviously had much greater latitude in counter-attacking in these regions.  Dense southern civilian populations were protected as they were further away.  The allies could bomb and massively attack relatively indiscriminately.

What was being done and the allies either could not or would not realize is that the North was drawing firepower away from the lowlands and heavily populated urban areas that would be the main focus of attack in the attempt to inspire national revolution.

Westmoreland complied.  In order to protect Khe Sanh and the surrounding province he deployed 250,000

Hue after Tet

troops including half of MACV’s maneuver battalions to the I Corps Tactical Zone.

That’s a quarter million troops, baby!  More than 100,000 more troops than we have EVER had in Iraq. And, that what was just redeployed.  It doesn’t count the 100s of thousands already there.

Lieutenant General Frederick Weyand was disturbed by this.  He was a former intelligence officer, which in THIS case did not turn out to be an oxymoron.  He was suspicious of the recent turn of events and notified Westmoreland of those suspicions.  As a result, Westmoreland redeployed 15 battalions back to the outskirts of Saigon.  When the true offensive DID begin on Tet, this redeployment may very well have been the key to why the offensive did not succeed overwhelmingly and end the war then and there.

By the beginning of January 1968, the U.S had deployed 331,098 Army personnel and 78,013 Marines in nine divisions, an armored cavalry regiment, and two separate brigades to South Vietnam. They were joined there by the 1st Australian Task Force, a Royal Thai Army regiment, two South Korean infantry divisions, and a South Korean Marine Corps brigade.  South Vietnamese strength totaled 350,000 regulars in the Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps. They were in turn supported by the 151,000-man Regional Forces and 149,000-man Popular Forces, which were the equivalent of regional and local militias.

Shit hitting the Fan

Just days before the offensive the preparedness of the allies was relaxed.  The North announced that there would be a seven-day truces between the 27^th of January and the 3^rd of February to observe Tet.  The South Vietnamese military made plans for recreational leave for a full half of its forces.  Westmoreland requested of Saigon that it cancel the upcoming cease-fire but President Thieu refused on the grounds that it would damage troop morale and benefit communist propagandists.

On the 28^th of January 11 Vietcong cadre were captured in possession of two pre-recorded audio tapes appealing to the populace of

already occupied Saigon, Hue, and Da Nang.

But still everyone was laid-back.  If Westmoreland truly was concerned he sure didn’t get it firmly across to anyone.

On the evening of the 30^th of January 200 U.S. colonels serving on the MACV intelligence staff attended a pool party at the officer’s quarters in Saigon.

According to James Meecham, an analyst at the Combined Intelligence Center who attended the party

I had no conception Tet was coming, absolutely zero… Of the 200-odd colonels present, not one I talked to knew Tet was coming, without exception.

Besides the people in Saigon, Westmoreland also didn’t get his message over in Washington.  He warned LBJ that as late as the 25^th of January that something was coming.  But he was so optimistic and oblique in his reports that no one saw what was coming.

Then, the Shit hit the Fan.

(to be continued)

C.E. Spots

Tet–Preparing to Attack

Series Contents

1. The Tet Offensive
   
2. Tet: Preparing to Attack
3. Tet: Allied Defenses
4. Tet: Battle for Saigon

Preparing to Attack

According to official North Vietnamese literature the decision to attack came about

as a perceived U.S. failure to win the war, the failure of the American bombing campaign, and the anti-war sentiment in the United States that was all to visible.

The north was suffering.

Causalities were staggering and the US bombing had made an impact on the economy.  Foreign advisers from China and Russia feared that prolonging conventional warfare would lead to a “Korea” solution with permanent partition which was unacceptable.

Pay attention some of my readers–one of the benefits of a communist government is the ability to eliminate opposition by simply to eliminate the opponents.  That is what was done here.

The communist government silenced opponents to the massive attack plan and proceeded with the idea.  It would begin with diversionary attacks on border areas and when enemy strength was siphoned off to meet the diversions then launching simultaneous attacks and allied bases of operations.

Hue and Khe Sanh were crucial.  Whether or not the plan was involved enough to take into account US Presidential Primary Campaigns is unclear.  The fact that it did so is history.

It wasn’t vital to try to cripple or hurt the US military in S. Vietnam.  That is a popular misconception.  Get it out of your head right now.  The plan was to hurt S. Vietnamese military operations, inspire popular uprisings and cripple S. Vietnamese government popular support.  In addition to the military campaign there was also a propaganda campaign intended to induce ARVN troops to desert and start the general uprising.  If outright victory could not be gained then there was hope that the offensive could induce the creation of a coalition government and the withdrawal of American forces.  If that failed, followup operations would be conducted to wear down the enemy and lead to a negotiated settlement.

Preparations for the offensive were underway and by the beggining on on Tet 81,000 tons of supplies and 200,000 troops including seven complete infantry regiments and 20 independent battalions had already made the trip south on the Ho Chi Minh trail.  These logistics also succeeded in rearming and resuppling the guerilla Viet Cong in-country with new AK-47 rifles and B-40 rocket-propelled grenade launchers which gave them superior fire-power to the ARVN.

Hanoi made a diplomatic feint by agreeing to reopen negotiations with the US if it ended its operation Rolling Thunder (northern bombing).  This started a diplomatic flurry of activity which of course amounted to nothing because it was merely a feint for the soon to begin Tet Offensive.

Later estimates were that during the offensive there were 130,000 North Vietnamese regulars in the south NOT including 160,000 Viet Cong and infrastrtucture personnel and 33,000 service and support troops organized into nine divisions composed of 35 infantry and 20 artillery and/or anti-aircraft regiments which were in turn composed of 230 infantry and six sapper battalions.

(to be continued)

The Tet Offensive

Series Contents;

1. The Tet Offensive
   
2. Tet: Preparing to Attack
3. Tet: Allied Defenses
4. Tet: Battle for Saigon

Part I

The Tet Offensive was a military campaign conducted by the Vietcong (opposition guerrilla army in South Vietnam) and the Army of North Vietnam beginning on the 30^th of January and ending on the 23^rd of September 1968. It was aimed at the Army of South Vietnam and the United States armed forces in the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam). The purpose was to strike military and civilian control centers in South Vietnam and create a popular uprising in that country that would culminate in the fall of Saigon (capital of S. Vietnam).

It is called “Tet” because Tet is the official New Year’s Day in Vietnam. North and South Vietnam announced by radio that in honor of the most important holiday in Vietnam that there would be a two-day cease-fire. However, in the early morning hours of January 30^th (New Year’s Day) the Viet Cong began a wave of attacks in the I and II Corps Tactical Zones. At first the attacks did not cause widespread alarm or lead to extraordinary allied defensive measures. The next morning however more than 80,000 Viet Cong troops struck more than 100 towns and cities, including 36 of 44 provincial capitals, five of six autonomous cities, 72 of 245 district towns and the national capital (Saigon) itself. It was the largest military operation by either side up to that point in the war.

The South Vietnamese Army and the allied forces were surprised and stunned, but most of the attacks were successfully repulsed. The communists suffered massive causalities. There were two exceptions; the old imperial capital of Hue and the U.S. combat base at Khe Sanh where fighting lasted for more than one month and two months respectively.

President Lyndon Johnson

It was a military disaster for the Vietcong but a public relations victory. The American public and even top administration officials had come to believe that because of previous defeats that the communists were unable to launch an offensive anything close to the scope of Tet. Most Western historians concluded that Tet ended in June, but it in fact lasted through two more phases. The second began in early May and lasted until the end of the month. The third began on August 17^th and lasted until September 23^rd.

In the summer of the preceding year, General William Westmoreland (commander Military Assistance Command, Vietnam: MACV ) believed that who was winning the war could be calculated by determining the replacement rate of enemy troops. To do this he took the total number of enemy combatants in-country and subtracted the number of those eliminated. Then he added back to that the number of enemy combatants replacing those eliminated and if the first calculation was greater than the second then the conclusion was that the S Vietnamese and U.S. forces were winning.

The problem was that MACV estimates and CIA estimates differed on how many combatants were in country to begin with. The difference was 130,000. MACV estimated 300,000. The CIA estimated 430,000.

General William Westmoreland

The military routinely gave estimates of enemy strength to the press and the MACV figures that were being used. If the CIA figures were reported then that would seriously undermine the impression that was being made to the American public. The military was trying to show that the U.S. was winning the war. Giving a figure of 130,000 more than previously reported not only would make enemy troop strength and determination look stronger but also would undercut the credibility of MACV.

MACV tried to force a compromise on the CIA by insisting that they not count V.C. militias but the CIA said that was ridiculous because militias accounted for inflicting more than 50% of U.S. causalities. A final solution to the problem occurred when a report was issued using the MACV figures with an addendum at the end of the report stating CIA objections to the figures. Interagency rivalry and bureaucratic bullshit was responsible for misleading the public on the advisability of continuing the war which resulted in untold loss of additional life among American and South Vietnamese young men.

It was a decline of public support during the latter half of ’67 that upset the administration of Lyndon Johnson. 45% of the Americans polled felt that the U.S. had made a mistake in sending troops to S.E. Asia. It wasn’t because people felt that the cause was not a worthy one. It was because people were beginning to believe that it was unwinnable. Their taxes were also going up. Another poll (55%) stated that Americans wanted a stricter policy—“let’s win or get out.” So instead of concentrating on winning the war the administration concentrated on changing the public’s perception of the war. The goal was to convince the public that we were not losing but had, rather, reached a stalemate and conversely that the administration’s policies were succeeding.

The administration began pushing statistics that indicated progress; “kill ratios,” “body counts,” and “village pacification.” Vice President Hubert Humphrey went on the Today Show and stated “We are on the offensive. Territory is being gained.” And, “We are making steady progress.” President Johnson summoned General Westmoreland and U.S. Ambassador Ellsworth Bunker to Washington who claimed that the U.S. policy was creating successes in the war.

Westmoreland gave an address at the National Press Club stating that the Vietcong was “unable to mount a major offensive . . . I am absolutely certain that whereas in 1965 the enemy was winning, today he is certainly losing . . . We have reached an important point when the end begins to come into view.”

(to be continued)

Mary Jo Kopechne

(1940-1969)

Mary Jo Kopechne was 29 years old at the time of her death: a young woman.  Born in Pennsylvania and educated at Caldwell College for Women in New Jersey.  She moved to Montgomery, Alabama and was a teacher at the Montgomery Catholic High School.  She moved on to Washington D.C. and became the secretary of Senator George Smathers.  Robert F. Kennedy, former U.S. Attorney General and brother to President John F. Kennedy ran for Senate in New York and won in 1964.

Mary Jo then became secretary for Senator Robert Kennedy for whom she worked until after the infamous assassination of R.F. Kennedy while campaigning for the Democratic nomination for president in 1968.

On July 18, 1969 she attended a party in her honor and in the honor of five other young women who were vital inside staffers for the late Robert F. Kennedy’s presidential bid.  Collectively and affectionately they were referred to as the “Boiler Room Girls.”  The party was held on Chappaquiddick Island off the coast of Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts.

Robert Kennedy’s younger brother, Edward (Teddy) Kennedy, was also at the party.

Mary Jo left the party at 11:15 p.m. with Teddy.  He allegedly offered to drive her to catch the last ferry back to Martha’s Vineyard and the motel where she was staying.  They never made the ferry.

Kennedy, U.S. Senator from Massachusetts since 1962, later stated that on the way to the ferry that he made a wrong turn onto a dirt road instead of onto the paved, correct Main Street.  He continued more than a half mile on the dirt road, descended a hill and came upon a narrow bridge.  He drove his car, a 1967 Oldsmobile Delmont 88, off the side of the bridge and it overturned in Poucha Pond.  An investigation determined that the car was traveling at about 35 miles per hour when it left the bridge.

Teddy got out of the car.  Kopechne died.

He said he made several diving attempts to save her, but after exhausting himself he rested for about fifteen minutes and then walked for another fifteen minutes past several houses back to the cottage where the party was held.  Outside the cottage he came upon the rear end of the car that his group had rented for the event which was parked near the front door.  Kennedy testified that it was there that he saw Ray LaRosa but made no mention of the accident to LaRosa and instead told him to go get Joe Gargan (Kennedy’s cousin and a lawyer) and another friend, former U.S. Attorney Paul Markham.

Senator Kennedy explained the situation to them, and, even though there was a telephone in the cottage, the trio did not try to call for an ambulance or the police.  Instead, they drove back to the scene of the accident and attempted a rescue but were unsuccessful.  STILL no call was made to authorities.

INSTEAD, United States Senator Edward Kennedy was driven to the ferry dock where he jumped into the water and swam between Chappaquiddick Island and Martha’s Vineyard some 500 feet, almost 170 yards, or nearly two football fields.  After making landfall on Martha’s Vineyard, the senator returned to his room at the Shiretown Inn. Gargan and Markham stated that Kennedy was going to notify the authorities and they headed back to the party cottage.

The next morning Gargan, Markham and several female coworkers of Kopechne took the first ferry back to the Vineyard.  Kennedy was seen around the hotel well groomed and chatting it up with other hotel guests.  It was now after 9:00 a.m. and no one of the concerned group (of which the senator was the prime mover) and made any attempt to notify the authorities.  But the car and the dead young woman had been discovered.

By this time, two fishermen who had no reason to worry about their reputations as married men or Kennedys or United States Senators and who had no reason to fear about what this might do to their chances of being elected president of the United States came upon the submerged car and immediately rushed to inform the authorities.  Divers discovered the dead body of Mary Jo Kopechne by 8:45 a.m.

At 9:30, Kennedy was found talking on a phone on the Chappaquiddick side of the ferry.  He was asked if he knew that a dead woman had been dragged from his car.  He denied it.  He later recanted during questioning at the Edgartown Police Station and gave a short written statement about the night’s events.  When he was questioned about the details, he “lawyered up.”

A deputy sheriff reported having seen Kennedy during the drive to the drink and his report indicated that the senator was driving erratically and sped away to avoid him when the deputy tried, on foot, to approach the stopped car.

The diver who retrieved the body of Mary Jo from the car stated that the position of her body indicated that she had been breathing from a trapped pocket of air in the car and very likely suffocated, instead of drowning, when the oxygen in the trapped air pocket was depleted.  This was never proved beyond a reasonable doubt because the Kopechne family refused to allow an autopsy.  However, it can be reasonably surmised that if that was the case then Mary Jo’s final minutes must have been truly horrific as she struggled for air in the submerged, over-turned car while Teddy swam to safety.

Lion of the Senate

Teddy testified that he made more than one attempt to free her from the car.  When the car was recovered, three of the four windows were either open or smashed in.

The legal consequences?

Kennedy received a deferred two-month sentence and one year probation for leaving the scene of an accident.  Critics claim that Kennedy got off lightly because of his family reputation, consideration for his two brothers who were slain (R.F.K. just one year previously) and, obviously, his political connections.  Many details, accoridng to critics, were swept under the rug but came to light later through journalistic investigation that suggested that very little was done to gather any information that might hurt Teddy.

What did he say in his own defense?

He said he was NOT driving under the influence of alcohol.  There was NO intent to be anything other than “friendly” with or to Mary Jo.  He swam back to Martha’s Vineyard because there were no night ferries and in the process very nearly drowned himself (justice denied).  and that his whole emotional state over the HOURS between the incident and his owning up to it only after being questioned in the police station were the cause for his failure to notify the authorities or admit to the fact when asked before arriving at the police station.

The Lion of the Senate still stalks the halls of Congress.

Rest inPeace, Mary Jo.

COMMENTARY

I was twelve years old when this incident happened.  It was THE scandal of the time.  Just one year before, in 1968, Ted’s brother Robert was assassinated while primary campaigning for the Democratic Nomination.  Martin Luther King was assassinated the same year as Bobby.

The Democratic Convention witnessed riots and the worst case of police and government violent repression recorded in US history before or since.  Richard Nixon was elected president.  Man landed on the moon.  The Tet Offensive in Vietnam proved conclusively that the US was terminally fucked in that war.

The decade was one of momentous, historic scientific, political, and cultural upheaval and advancement.  In the meantime, the Junior United States Senator from Massachusetts and heir-apparent of the Kennedy mantel, was drunkenly and adulterously trying to bang an idealistic young secretary in his own backyard, in the process murdering her and then running like a yellow spineless coward when he caught his johnson in the fan.

He was a moral degenerate.  He was a criminal.  He may be rehabilitated.  I hope so.  May God have mercy on his soul.

C.E.S.

Iron and Blood

If you believe that history is personality driven then the history of Germany from Bismarck to today is largely dependent on the leadership of Bismarck.  If you believe (as I do) that history is a mix of personality and events then the history of Germany is STILL dependent on his leadership.  He was a powerful dynamic man.

Otto von Bismarck quotes

Otto von Bismarck

Anyone who likes sausage and respects the law shouldn’t watch either one being made

People never lie so much as after a hunt, during a war, and before an election.

There is a providence that protects idiots, drunkards, children, and the United States of America.

The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood

Weak Strong States

This is the third in the series on the theoretical and analytical work by Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man.[1]

The first two of the series can be found here.

• The End of History and the Last Man
• Pessimism of the West

In the second installment, we discussed how liberal democracies and the political scientists that inhabit them have failed to see the rising tide of liberal democracy around the world.  We examined the reasons for this pessimism based on the failures in the middle of the 20^th century as witnessed in Nazism and Stalinism, and the seeming permanence of Soviet Communism after the fall of Stalinism and during the Cold War period.

G.W.F. Hegel

Liberal democracy was supposed to bring about the final installment of political enlightenment and herald a new and ultimate Age of Man. Inherent contradictions aside, it was supposed to put to an end the horrors of government during the millennia leading up to the establishment of the groundling democracies formed in the late 18^th century in France and the United States.

France and the United States were by no means the most liberal or democratic states that they could be at the time of their respective revolutions.  France suffered under a dictatorship for a brief period that gave rise to Napoleon’s “Empire.”  The United States still enslaved and disenfranchised substantial percentage of its population.  The point is that the dam had burst and it was felt that there would be now no going back.

Hegel was the first to propose that political socialization was a result of a “dialectical” process with each preceding form competing with present reality to form a “synthesis.”  Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis.  New and better forms of political socialization evolved to a point where the evolution becomes complete.  To Hegel this completion found its form in liberal democracy, and therefore the “End of History.”  Hegel has been criticized for giving justification for the authoritarian regimes (particularly Nazism) in the 20^th century, but this criticism is faulty.

Karl Marx, took a page from Hegel in the use of his dialectical model and formed the basis for “Dialectical Materialism” and arrived at the conclusion that the End of History was not liberal Democracy but Communism.  Their methods were the same but the conclusions were radically different.

The failures of communism are well recorded and need not be discussed in great detail here.  The successes of liberal democracy not only continued but are spreading ever wider.  It will be the future current successes on which we will concentrate.  Before we can do that however, we must first briefly examine why liberal democracy is the form that has held on and continues to expand and why theories of “Strong” states ultimately fail.  That can be done with an examination of what Fukuyama calls the Weak Strong State.[2]

Let’s begin by defining our terms.  What do we mean by a “strong” state?  What is meant when we speak of “weak” states?

A strong state is one who, by definition, is able to control its political organization and permanence through strict control of the political system.  A strong state tells the people unequivocally who the political are and will be without leaving a choice for leaders to be replaced by a democratic process.  A tool to accomplish this is by strict restriction of liberal policies or rights-rights such as speech, association, and privacy.  All this, again by definition, makes the political structure of such states “illiberal” and “undemocratic.”

The trade-off for the loss of democratic and liberal rights is security.  The people give up these things (theoretically) in exchange for social and economic stability.  It pays here to mention that besides personal liberalness that we can also speak of “economic” liberality where the contrast is between an economy that is allowed to grow and flourish (with some restrictions) on the one hand and an economy that is rigidly controlled and restricted by the state political apparatus on the other.

The “weak” state, on the other hand, is the liberal-democratic state.  It is perceived as weak because the political structure is seen as unstable.  Social and economic security is not as certain as in the strong state because the political environment is not as tightly controlled.  Personal liberties are unrestricted which gives possible rise to uncontrolled outbursts of public sentiment over public dissatisfaction.  Leaders and parties can be changed through the democratic process.  Economic liberalism gives rise to class inequalities and poverty, because of the inequities of capitalism.

The liberal-democratic state though is not weak.  It is strong for the very reasons that it is presupposed to be weak.  It is the very liberal/democratic nature of the political and social process that gives the state the ultimate legitimacy upon which it rests its authority.  It is a state that respects the rights of its population and allows the people, not the government, to decide what should be done when difficulties arise.

Strength or viability therefore rests on the legitimacy of the regime.  Legitimacy is the degree of faith that is placed in the state.  All states, liberal-democratic or otherwise must have some measure of legitimacy to begin with in order to last any length of time.  The greater the degree, the greater the viability.

A strict authoritarian state such as Nazi Germany held a certain degree of legitimacy or else it would not have been

able to rise to the power that it held at its zenith.  No ruler, not even Adolph Hitler can rule solely by force over an entire nation of people.  He needed supporters who believed that he was the best possible choice for running the country and therefore gave their allegiance to him.  It was in his counselors and generals therefore that Hitler and therefore Nazism found legitimacy.  This elite supporting group therefore were available to carry out his commands through their subordinates who similarly gave legitimacy to their leaders.  It was an authoritarian (and very nearly totalitarian) state.  Liberal rights were severely curtailed and of course there was no democratic action.

Nazism, fortunately, was proved illegitimate through force of arms.  A great many horrors were committed before it was brought down and it is equally certain that a great many more would have occurred had it not been defeated militarily.  But, even if it had survived, it could not have endured.  It’s ideology rested on the idea of the superiority of race and the racial right to rule.  To remain legitimate it would have had to constantly been in armed international conflict.  If it had won, then its reason for being would have been eliminated and it would have either collapsed completely or the form of government would have had to violently change.  Violently, because in a system of authoritarian repression, any conflicting ideal would have to be brutally put down.

Soviet communism is a different matter and its persistence, among other things, gave justification for the western pessimism mentioned earlier in this essay and in the second in the series, “Pessimism of the West.”

Authoritarianism differs from Totalitarianism in one crucial respect.  Authoritarianism controls the political/social culture but mainly the political structure.  Authoritarianism allows some social structures to remain either unchanged or with restrictions.  Totalitarianism controls all spheres of life, both political and social.  Therefore, an authoritarian government may allow religious practice even if it is only the state approved religion.  Totalitarian government abolishes ALL religion.  Religion becomes the worship of the state itself.  Authoritarian government may allow state censored press and other media.  Totalitarian government owns and operates the media.  There is no need for censorship because all you are going to absorb from the media is strictly what the government puts out for consumption.  Totalitarianism is 100% all-encompassing.

Animal Farm was about an authoritarian government.  1984 was about totalitarianism.  When an authoritarian government finally loses its legitimacy it is more likely to ease its way into liberal-democracy because there are structures already in place to ease the transition.  When totalitarianism collapses it is more like to collapse completely because there is nothing ready-made on which to form a consensus of acceptable social interaction.  When the state goes, so does everything the state represented.

This therefore is a good explanation of why supposedly strong states are in fact weak and why the truly states of liberal-democracies are not only the best representations of what has become the End of History and why they are sure to endure.  Next in the series will be discussed what Fukuyama calls the “Worldwide Liberal Revolution.”

C.E. Spots

---

[1] Frances Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man (New York: Free Press, 1992).  Second paperback edition.

[2] ibid.  13-38

And Yet It Moves!

Galileo Galilei allegedly muttered these words when he was forced to recant his theory that the Earth revolved around the Sun.  In order to avoid excommunication and probable execution as a result of Heresy, Galileo was forced to recant his theory in a Church trial in 1633.  Even after recanting, he was still under house arrest and of course his future writing came under intense scrutiny of the Church.  Six years after the trial he went blind.  Three years after that, he died.

Did he die a broken man?  You bet.  Was he later vindicated?  You bet, and of course.

At the end of his trial did he mutter, “And yet it moves!”  Are you kidding me?  They would have burnt him on the spot.  There is no proof he ever said it.  His first biographer makes no mention of it.

But it sounds good doesn’t it?  It’s something that you would have wished for him to say.  This broken man would therefore be able to grasp at least a shred of his formal dignity by this parting thumb of the nose.  But sorry folks, he didn’t say it.  It’s just another of the lies told you by your high school history teacher.

Hope I didn’t burst any bubbles.  I take that back.  I hope I did.  *shrug*

c.e.s.